Unlikely with current deliveries. In fact, certain that both are still recouping investment and will for years to come. By years, I do not expect break even before 2020 even if A380 production hits target. As TW noted, it is ancillary sales that make the profit. That takes a large number of engines in overhaul or receiving PIPs.

Thanx for the feedback, I thought the fact that the A380 is a 4-holer would have made a difference.

So that also applies with RR for the Trent 500 on the A345/6 series as well...a lot of losses for RR there.

On another note, I always wondered why RR and GE participated in the A380 engine programs and then went out and developed new engines for the 787 in substantially the same thrust class. Seems a unnecessary duplication of R&D spending...or was it simply a fortuitous case of tight timing between the two aircraft?

Quoting TW (Reply 1):
Probably not, as the engine manufacturers often only make profit on maintenance and spare parts, not on the sale of the engine.

Since when have the engine manufacturers been applying this business model? You can only do this if you have substantial in-service engine volume so relatively recently I imagine? Also, who did it first?

Quoting faro (Reply 4):Thanx for the feedback, I thought the fact that the A380 is a 4-holer would have made a difference.

It will

Quoting faro (Reply 4):So that also applies with RR for the Trent 500 on the A345/6 series as well...a lot of losses for RR there

I'd guess they sold around 600 engines. The biggest issue for RR I'd guess is how long these airframes stay flying

Quoting faro (Reply 4):On another note, I always wondered why RR and GE participated in the A380 engine programs and then went out and developed new engines for the 787 in substantially the same thrust class

But they're not. The Trent 900/GP7000 are capable of much higher thrusts than the Genx and Trent 1000

Quoting astuteman (Reply 6):But they're not. The Trent 900/GP7000 are capable of much higher thrusts than the Genx and Trent 1000

AFAIK the 789's engines will be capable of +70,000 lbs thrust which is pretty much what the A380 engines are delivering today.

So I guess that you mean that with the A380, RR/EA really designed for the A389 and not the A388 as such. That's deferring their break-even point quite some time out in the future, not to mention incurring a big dose of additional uncertainty...

Quoting faro (Reply 4):I always wondered why RR and GE participated in the A380 engine programs and then went out and developed new engines for the 787 in substantially the same thrust class.

The RR offering is still a Trent on both aircraft...lots of detailed differences but it's not an all new engine. I don't know how close the EA engine is to the GE90 but the GEnX is also a GE90 derivative so it also wasn't an all new engine.

Quoting faro (Reply 5):Since when have the engine manufacturers been applying this business model?

Quoting faro (Reply 4):So that also applies with RR for the Trent 500 on the A345/6 series as well...a lot of losses for RR there.

Yes, but not that bad and soon they will make money assuming enough A340-500/600 see their first D-check. Most of the T500 has enough from the T700 to save money, albeit with a 'scaled core.' (New). In the Case of the A340, there are over 600 engines in service, so RR will probably make money.

There are only 92 A380s delivered. Even if all were from one vendor, that wouldn't be at a payback situation. (it typically takes 400 engines that have seen some extra ancillary revenue such as an optional PIP). Eventually the engine vendors should do well, but not at the current production rates.

Quoting faro (Reply 4):I always wondered why RR and GE participated in the A380 engine programs and then went out and developed new engines for the 787 in substantially the same thrust class.

When Boeing held their competition for the 787, it was brutal. All 3 engine makers were invited, but Boeing made it clear only two would be selected. After receiving the first proposals, Boeing rejected all three saying better fuel economy was expected. Pratt proposed a GTF. Now Boeing didn't want to be a GTF experiment, so they pushed back at Pratt and demanded better fuel economy without the gearbox. RR and GE were willing to sign up for promises they have yet to meet.

Now some of that was technology coming down the pipeline. For the A380, everyone went fairly conservative. The GP7200 doesn't even have contra-rotation! That is an easy 3% drop in fuel burn that was a given by the GP7200 launch, but new bearings were outside of the development budget.

So to meet efficiency RR and GE pushed the cores on the 787 to have less growth (running a core 'hot' is one way to increase efficiency).

Quoting gigneil (Reply 9):The GP7200 and Trent 900 are capable of much more. They're just not presently required to deliver it.

Probably Pratt with the JT9D. That circa 1970 engine didn't break even until the late 1990s. Or maybe it was GE with the CF6. Either way, the model works. Whomever gets out a high volume prints money. (e.g., GE with the CFM-56)

Quoting faro (Reply 7):AFAIK the 789's engines will be capable of +70,000 lbs thrust which is pretty much what the A380 engines are delivering today.

So I guess that you mean that with the A380, RR/EA really designed for the A389 and not the A388 as such

That the Trent 1000/Genx have 111" fans and a higher bypass ratio (up to 11:1), and the Trent 900/GP7000 have 116" fans and a c. 9:1 bypass ratio should tell us that the A380's engines are considerably bigger and more capable.

As far as I'm aware both of the A380's engines have already been certified into the 82 000lb - 84 000lb thrust range.

We're going to have to wait for engines like the Trent 1000 TEN which will enter service in 2016 to see 78 000 lb from a 787 engine.

The answer to your question is "yes, RR/EA were asked to design the engines for the A380 to accommodate the A380-900, much as Airbus designed the entire airframe to do so

Probably Pratt with the JT9D. That circa 1970 engine didn't break even until the late 1990s. Or maybe it was GE with the CF6. Either way, the model works. Whomever gets out a high volume prints money. (e.g., GE with the CFM-56)

Quoting astuteman (Reply 11):That the Trent 1000/Genx have 111" fans and a higher bypass ratio (up to 11:1), and the Trent 900/GP7000 have 116" fans and a c. 9:1 bypass ratio should tell us that the A380's engines are considerably bigger and more capable.

Thanx for the detailed replies, much appreciated.

That JT9D break-even period freaks me out though. Practically 30 years to recoup your money on one single engine project: a big WOW there! That is one very very risky business...presumably they don't do this with military engines and price hefty R&D margins into the sales price up front. Difficult to see such practice generalised across the board in civil and military markets.

I wonder how long a break-even period RR/EA based their launch decisions re the T900/GP7200 on; probably something similar if they're counting on launch of the A389 to secure the requisite break-even volume.

Quoting faro (Reply 12):That is one very very risky business...presumably they don't do this with military engines and price hefty R&D margins into the sales price up front.

Military sales are often cost-plus or include some kind of contract escalation terms...otherwise no OEM would touch them. The technology risk is just too high. This is why the cost of military programs keeps going up and the government just accepts it, rather than holding the OEM's feet to the fire. In the rare cases of fixed-price contracts (A400M comes to mind) the OEM's are terribly financially exposed.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 10):Whomever gets out a high volume prints money. (e.g., GE with the CFM-56)

GE and Snecma.

It's undeniable that CFMI has had quite some success making engines. But CFM56 isn't one engine design. There are at least four groups of very different CFM56 engines, and certainly not equally successful related to numbers produced:

-2 and -5A and 3.
-5B
-7B
-5C

...and they cover thrust rating between some 19 and 34 klbs. Those groups are at least as different as for instance an RB211-22 and a Trent 900.

Which brings us back to...

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 8):The RR offering is still a Trent on both aircraft...lots of detailed differences but it's not an all new engine. I don't know how close the EA engine is to the GE90 but the GEnX is also a GE90 derivative so it also wasn't an all new engine.

Exactly. Sometimes a new engine variant involves picking off the shelf plus maybe a little scaling. Sometimes it's an entirely new research program. Often it is something in between.

All engine manufacturers must constantly climb to be on top of newest technology. Sometimes they use the advances to improve existing engines, sometimes they use it for new engine versions, and sometimes (seldom) for entirely new engine families. The main cost is constant research to stay at leading edge in the competition.

Neither A380 engines are anything revolutionary, but rather state of the art versions of rather conservative usage of known technology. Arguably biggest new thing is the T900 contra rotation, a first on airliners. But then RR ran the first military Pegasus engine with contra rotation on test back in 1959.

It's next to impossible to apply research costs directly to one single engine type. If for instance the T900 had not happened, then at least the contra rotation R&D costs would have been applied to the T1000, and if it hadn't happened either, then to the TXWB.

Like the CFM56 family it's fair to say that the RB-211/Trent family of engines has been a great success.

Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm

Looking at the orders on Wikipedia, RR will eventually break even and make some money supporting the T900. (Note: Due to the fan redesign, I suspect RR spent enough money on the T900 that it will take a while to break even.) The GP7200 should make a small profit (due to selling over 500 engines).

Yes. But please remember the debacle of the 741 launch. Pratt had quite a bit of debt built up to pay off over the years. Pratt didn't exactly have a choice with the new 'economic model.'

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 14):There are at least four groups of very different CFM56 engines, and certainly not equally successful related to numbers produced:

And sharing a core saves costs tremendously. RR will make money someday on the T500, but not yet. But the CFM-56 had the benefit of having the core developed by the military (failed F-15 engine called the F-101). Which is why the early CFMs were possible. E.g., the DC-8 re-engine (IIRC, CFM-56-2). Both sides have benefited in the CFM alliance. Not only that, but GE engines heavily use SNECMA sub-assemblies.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 14):If for instance the T900 had not happened, then at least the contra rotation R&D costs would have been applied to the T1000, and if it hadn't happened either, then to the TXWB.

But if RR hadn't been launching new engines, they would have cut their R&D budget too...

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 14):f for instance the T900 had not happened, then at least the contra rotation R&D costs would have been applied to the T1000, and if it hadn't happened either, then to the TXWB.

What amazes me is how the GP7200 beat the T900 in fuel burn without contra-rotation! Much of it due to the highly advanced Pratt low spool. It might be derived, but it had the world's most efficient fan at EIS. The low turbine did very well too.

I know from my Pratt sources they were frustrated that GE wouldn't go contra-rotating or go with a variable fan nozzle on the GP7200. Both would have benefited the fuel burn (about 3% for contra rotation and 2% for the variable fan nozzle). One reason the T1000/GEnX had to be new engines. With both the new engines, they have *far* more advanced high compressors than the T900/GP7200. Due to the new compressors being at a much higher tip Mach #, they are truly new designs (although, perhaps not apparent to a casual observer).

To put it in perspective, the T1000 has a 52:1 pressure ratio vs. the T900 39:1. Quite a jump in technology.

I missed that announcement, so thanks for letting me know. The variable fan only really helps during cruise, so the C-series might have too short of a mission for good 'payback,' but I'm personally surprised at this decision. To me, variable fan nozzles are like contra-rotation, low hanging fruit once the technology is there.

Isn't that something similar to calling the CF6 a failed L-1011 engine? The F101 powers all B-1B bombers and a healthy part - maybe half - of the F-16 fighters.

But right, the F101 did lend its core to early CFM56 versions. The CFM56-2 and -5A were little more than mating the F101 core and the low spool from the Snecma M56 engine project.

The M56 (Snecma Moteur #56) was a projected engine to power the Dassault Mercure airliner, and should have given the Mercure a competitive range performance. But unfortunately development went way overtime, and Snecma gave up making their own core perform according to specs.

Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 15): And sharing a core saves costs tremendously. RR will make money someday on the T500, but not yet. But the CFM-56 had the benefit of having the core developed by the military (failed F-15 engine called the F-101). Which is why the early CFMs were possible. E.g., the DC-8 re-engine (IIRC, CFM-56-2). Both sides have benefited in the CFM alliance. Not only that, but GE engines heavily use SNECMA sub-assemblies.

Ummm the F-101 was originally designed specifically for the AMSA project, which became the B-1. The F-15 was originally developed with the PW F100. The F101 was in no way a "failure."

Unless, by your metric, failed means having spawned the ridiculously successful F110, which powers about 56% of all USAF F-16s, most F15Ks and F15SGs, and recently the new-build F-15S?

Quoting neutronstar73 (Reply 22):Unless, by your metric, failed means having spawned the ridiculously successful F110, which powers about 56% of all USAF F-16s, most F15Ks and F15SGs, and recently the new-build F-15S?